In August 2018, plaintiff Margarita Ramirez, a collections specialist for the environmental management and collection companies Asbury Environmental Services and World Oil Corp., underwent surgery for an ongoing shoulder injury. She reported back to work in December 2018, but she had restrictions from her physician. Ramirez’s restrictions included no repetitive reaching over her shoulder, no torqueing or repetitive torqueing with her right hand, no repetitive power grasping or holding, and no lifting greater than 10 pounds. Her physician also requested that Ramirez had to take a 10-minute break after every hour of data entry. However, Ramirez claimed that the companies did not allow her to return to work and that, instead, they put her on an extended leave of absence. Ramirez sued Asbury Environmental Services and World Oil Corp. She alleged that the companies’ actions constituted disability discrimination, a failure to provide reasonable accommodation for her disability and a failure to engage in the interactive process. Asbury Environmental Services was a subsidiary of World Oil, so, for the purposes of trial, the parties entered into a stipulation that the companies were Ramirez’s joint employers. Ramirez claimed that in December 2018, human resources told her that they had to see the doctor’s note for her restrictions before she could come back to work and that she would be contacted after the note was seen. However, she claimed she did not hear back from human resources until March 2019, when human resources asked her what her job entailed and if she could do her job. Ramirez claimed that she told human resources that she could do her job and that she wanted to return to work, but she was again told that someone would contact her back. Ramirez alleged that in July 2019, she was again asked what her job entailed and whether she could do it and that she again informed human resources that she could do her job and wanted to return to work. Ramirez’s counsel contended that the head of human resources had already decided that Ramirez would not be returned to her position in January 2019 and that Ramirez would be placed on leave, as a temporary worker was hired for Ramirez’s position and ultimately became a full-time employee in that position. Accordingly, counsel contended that from December 2018 onward, the companies unilaterally put Ramirez on extended leave of absence without telling her. Defense counsel argued that the companies could not accommodate Ramirez’s restrictions and that Ramirez was on an extended leave of absence because of that. Specifically, counsel contended that the companies could not accommodate Ramirez’s restriction of no repetitive reaching over her shoulder because Ramirez would need to reach inside two cabinets that were on the top of Ramirez’s cubicle. Counsel also contended that the companies could not accommodate Ramirez’s restriction of no torqueing or repetitive torqueing with her right hand because Ramirez would need to move the mouse for her computer. Defense counsel further contended that Ramirez’s restriction of no repetitive power grasping or holding could not be accommodated because it would interfere with Ramirez’s job of going through documents and invoices, as she would have to grasp files. Counsel contended that Ramirez’s restriction of no lifting greater than 10 pounds also could not be accommodated because Ramirez had to sometimes go into the storage room to get old files. In addition, defense counsel contended that the companies could not accommodate Ramirez’s restriction of having to take a 10-minute break for every hour of data entry performed because it would reduce Ramirez’s ability to perform. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defense’s claims about Ramirez’s restrictions were all pretext. Specifically, counsel argued that Ramirez’s job did not include reaching above her shoulder and that Ramirez had no repetitive or power motion, or torqueing in her position. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that a human resources specialist with the companies assumed that torqueing meant that Ramirez was turning in her chair, instead of twisting her wrist. Counsel also noted that Ramirez’s shoulder injury developed around 2014 to 2016 and that Ramirez already had a restriction in place to take a break from entering data at those times. Counsel argued that because Ramirez already had a past accommodation to take breaks during data entry, that accommodation could have been continued after her surgery. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that all of the companies’ documents and invoices were electronic and scanned into the system, so Ramirez would not have to physically hold them to access the information in them. In addition, counsel argued that Ramirez’s supervisor did not allow collections specialists to enter the storage room and that file clerks would access the files, if needed, for collections specialists like Ramirez., Ramirez worked for World Oil and Asbury Environmental Services since 2001. She claimed that she was put on leave in December 2018 and that she suffered emotional distress as a result of dealing with the events. She also claimed that she was unable to obtain a part-time position in a similar job with a different company until 2021. Ramirez sought recovery of past and future lost wages, and damages for her past and future emotional pain and suffering.